that are sharp as a tack still, and their mental facilities are still there in abundance. I think that this is purely a repug attack on Sen. Feinstein.
However, there seems to be discrepancies in the ages of representatives representing Americans whose average age is roughly 40 (per a goggle search) vs. the avg. age of the senate and/or house. I know that folks gravitate to more experience, more knowledge in the skillset of their representatives, and voters did elect them still to be their reps (House or Senate), but as they say, it's a gerontocracy. Especially more so when so many of us, in the 'real workforce', if we reach a certain age, must retire from our former companies.
Does this mean that the layout of our Congress should be looked at in more detail, that is, more House and more Senate members be apportioned to the states, thus perhaps tamping down any generational concerns on the part of one age group from dominating the other age groups? This (hypothetically, double the House/Senate population from 535 to 1070) would also in theory do away with the favoritism shown towards states such as North Dakota and South Dakota (two senators each, while the states of NY and/or Calif., other states with their massive populations still only get two each). The House seems already in line w/ the population growth, but appointments, etc. are only confirmed in the Senate, and the House doesn't get involved w/ a lot of the stuff the Senate does.
These are ramblings on my part. I (and I think a lot of others too) don't really know what the answer(s) are.
However, I do have to say that I still hear of age discrimination still around (friends searching for jobs, and the under the table reason that they still haven't found a job is that they are too old (proving it in a Court of Law is a different story as we all know). It's funny that Congress had mandated in the past that age discrimination is wrong, etc., and yet, it's still here in the US but not in Congress. Must be nice to live in a different tier of Society.